The spatial organization of cities deeply changed all along the 20th century, but the effects of urban form on daily trips are still under debate (Ewing and Cervero, 2010). However, methods used to appreciate these impacts are not really efficient to separate the different factors: as well as through city comparisons or through diachronic analysis, even thanks to LUTI modelling, it is difficult to separate urban form impacts from economical or cultural contexts or general changes (Echenique et al., 2012). In addition, the tools to assess urban planning and transport policies are often focused on one dimension of sustainable development, with restricted economic or environmental approaches, and rarely take the social dimension into account. Last, the results are provided at an aggregated level, without differentiation between household types (depending on their location, level of income, etc.) The main purpose of that presentation is to propose a simulation exercise carried out from a real city case and testing the impacts of differentiated tendencies of urban form, all other things being equal. These results will be provided for the 3 pillars of sustainable development and distinguished by type of households, both for the household expenditures (Pelé et Nicolas, 2016) and for the environmental impacts of transport (François et al., 2017). The SIMBAD LUTI model, calibrated on the Lyon urban area (France) by the LAET (Nicolas et al., 2013), has been used to simulate different urban form trends and to assess their social, economic and environmental impacts. More precisely, the results are based on the construction of 3 urban form scenarios inspired from the VILMODes project (collaboration between THEMA, LVMT and LAET laboratories, supported by the French PREDIT program – Antoni et al., 2015): . A scenario of a polycentric urban area, with sub-hubs distributed along a tram-train network, consistent with the Transit Oriented Development principals (Calthorpe, 1993); . A scenario of a sprawled urban area, with a stronger proportion of people located in the remote parts of the center; . A scenario of a monocentric urban area, compacted around a dense city center. Antoni, Bonin, Frankhauser, Houot, Nicolas, Thierry, Tomasoni, Toilier, Vuidel, 2015. VILMoDes - Ville et mobilités durables. Calthorpe, 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. Echenique, Hargreaves, Mitchell, Namdeo, 2012, "Growing cities sustainably - does urban form really matter?". Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), pp.121-137. François, Gondran, Nicolas, Parsons, 2017, “Environmental assessment of urban mobility –a method based on life cycle assessment of the results of a LUTI model”. Ecological Indicators, 72, pp. 597–604. Ewing,Cervero,2010. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76, 265–294. Nicolas, Bonnel, Bouzouina, Cabrera, Pascal, Pluvinet, Toilier, Zuccarello, 2013. La prospective urbanismetransport avec la plateforme SIMBAD. LAET report. Pelé, Nicolas, 2016, « L’impact du lieu de résidence sur la mobilité quotidienne des périurbains : une approche par la modélisation de leurs dépenses». Colloque ASRDLF, 7-9 juillet 2016, Gatineau, Canada. 11 p.